UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-6464
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ALBERT MCCOY MERCER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda Wright Allen, District
Judge. (2:01-cr-00062-AWA-1)
Submitted: May 24, 2012 Decided: May 31, 2012
Before MOTZ and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Albert McCoy Mercer, Appellant Pro Se. James Ashford Metcalfe,
Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Albert McCoy Mercer appeals the district court’s order
denying his motions for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) (2006). We review for abuse of discretion a
district court’s decision on whether to reduce a sentence under
§ 3582(c)(2) and review de novo a court’s conclusion on the
scope of its legal authority under § 3582(c). United States v.
Munn, 595 F.3d 183, 186 (4th Cir. 2010).
Section 3582(c)(2) is inapplicable to Mercer because
he was not sentenced “based on a sentencing range” that was
subsequently lowered by the United States Sentencing Commission.
Rather, as the district court correctly found, he was sentenced
to the mandatory statutory minimum term of imprisonment.
Mercer’s sentence was therefore not subject to reduction under
§ 3582(c)(2). Id. at 187 (“[A] defendant who was convicted of a
[cocaine base] offense but sentenced pursuant to a mandatory
statutory minimum sentence is ineligible for a reduction under
§ 3582(c)(2).”). Further, Mercer’s assertion of errors in the
original sentencing proceeding should have been raised on direct
appeal or in a motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West
Supp. 2011) and does not provide a basis for relief under
§ 3582(c)(2). United States v. Torres-Aquino, 334 F.3d 939, 941
(10th Cir. 2003).
2
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3